Mikvaot - Chapter 3

The Rambam alters the wording of his source, Mikveot 9:5, which mentions these substances adhering to a glass utensil. The Rambam does not mention glass, because, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3 (see also Hilchot Keilim 1:5), he maintains that glass utensils cannot be purified through immersion in a mikveh.

Since it will spoil the liquids, it is considered objectionable and, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, when the owner considers a substance objectionable, it is considered as intervening.

I.e., a craftsman who deals with tar. Since his hands will be filled with that substance, it is natural that some of it will stick to the outside of his utensils and he will not find it objectionable.

Because a private person would object to tar being found on such utensils and would not use it.

These utensils are used for hot substances. Hence even if the tar is on the outside, it will melt and that would be objectionable.

In Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:3, the Rambam defines this term as referring to the blood of a wild beast from India of universal renown which people everywhere use as a fragrance.
The Rambam is referring to a secretion of the abdominal gland of the male musk deer, a large animal that roams the mountains of Nepal and Tibet. The secretion is reddishbrown, with a honeylike consistency and a strong fragrance. After the gland is cut open, the secretion hardens, assumes a blackish-brown color, and, when dry, becomes granular. As mentioned in the notes to that source, other commentaries define mor differently.

Our translation of this term is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4).

For even craftsmen will object to the presence of such substances.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that this term refers to a small chair used to climb onto a large chair. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:2), the Rambam states that it refers to a small platform.

From the fact that he keeps these surfaces clean, it is apparent that the presence of intervening substances disturbs him.

As evidenced by the fact that he does not keep the surfaces clean.

Because he would find the presence of such substances objectionable.

For he is less particular about cleanliness and would not object to the presence of the foreign substances.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that the term refers to a saddle placed on a donkey when burdens are loaded upon it.

As stated in Hilchot De’ot 5:9, the garments of a Torah scholar must be attractive and clean. The rationale is that an untidy appearance will dishonor not only him, but also the Torah with which he is associated.

Mikveot 9:6 uses the term bor. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it refers to a person who possesses neither wisdom, nor character development.

Because an ordinary person is not that careful about the cleanliness of his garments.

Whose garments will be soiled with sap.

Since the clothes of these individuals are soiled because of their work, they will not object to other substances.

Since his work will inevitably cause his clothes to be soiled with blood, he accepts its presence.

In this instance as well, since the person works with such substances, it is inevitable that they will be found on his clothes. Hence, he will accept their presence.

It is possible to say that even a person who works in such professions would object to having two types of stains on his garments.

For this would cause the upper portion of his foot to become soiled and a person would not accept that.

For only the sole of a person’s foot would be soiled and he is less likely to object to that.

Because there, they can soil the clothes of one who sits there.

Because they will not soil anyone’s clothes.

I.e., a booth with a seat that is placed on top of a camel or the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:3)].

We have used the interpretation of the Vilna Gaon to the Tosefta, Mikveot 7:2, even though it is difficult to understand.

Sometimes, a layer of cotton is placed on the bottom of a necklace to prevent it from irritating the skin.

The cotton plugs the bell so that it does not make noise.

For the water of the mikveh will penetrate the cotton and wash away the mud.

When hardened, the water will not wash away the mud. The commentaries have questioned why, in the first clause, the Rambam ruled that water will wash away hardened mud, and yet, in this clause, he rules that it will not.

Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

With openings at one of the ends.

In a way that the water would not enter them.

For the water to enter the inner space of the handles, it is necessary to move the utensil back and forth in the water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:1)]. Daigram

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 10:1). When the handles are bent in this manner, water cannot enter them.

The Tur and, apparently, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 202:3, interpret the mishnah differently than the Rambam does.

For the air pocket will prevent the water from entering [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. Significantly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 202:6, states that this applies only when the opening of the container is narrow.

Thus enabling the water to enter all parts of its cavity.

Thus preventing water from entering under the folds easily.

Otherwise, the air in these closed portions will prevent the water from entering.

I.e., it need not be removed from the animal. Instead, the animal can immerse in an acceptable body of water and, in that way, purify the collar. Diagram

In this way, the water will be able to come in contact with the bottom of the kettle instead of it being covered by the coals [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:2)].

Other than water.

The other liquids are not considered as part of the mikveh. On the contrary, they intervene between the water of the mikveh.

Thus the water in the container becomes considered as part of the water of the mikveh and hence causes the container to be purified.

Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:21.

And thus the urine is considered part of the mikveh.

Since this water is holy, it does not become nullified to the water of the mikveh unless there is a majority of mikveh water.

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:2, when the Sages decreed that impure liquids would impart impurity to containers, they decreed that only the outside of the containers would become impure, not the insides. Nevertheless, to regain purity, the container must be submerged in the mikveh entirely.

They are other liquids and thus would not become nullified to the water of the mikveh. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the appearance of the liquid in the container will be the same as water, there is room for leniency as the Rambam explains.

I.e., the wine or the milk is not considered as in intervening substance.
The Ra’avad raises an objection to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that it follows a minority opinion in Zevachim 78b. The majority of the Sages, he maintains, follow a different understanding. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the passage appears to follow the Ra’avad’s understanding. Nevertheless, he offers an interpretation of that passage that would fit the Rambam’s ruling.

In which instance, the appearance of the liquids is not the same as that of the water. The Kessef Mishneh states that if the water of the mikveh diluted the liquids to the extent that their appearance is like water, the immersion is valid.

The fundamental principle here is that moist mud is not considered as an intervening substance, because the water penetrates through it. Since the mud is touching the water of the jug, the water from the mikveh is considered as having penetrated through to it. Thus the water in the jug is considered as part of the water of the mikveh.

See Psalms 40:3.

For the thick mud is considered as an intervening substance, preventing the water from the mikveh from reaching the water in the container.

Because the water from the mikveh is considered to have reached it. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 10, and notes.

If the clothes of poor people are tom, rather than have them mended professionally, they will simply tie knots where they are torn and wear them that way [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:3)].

And will mend them rather than leave them tied.

Because it can be assumed that they have them mended.

E. g., sheets and the like (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to a situation where the cube is sewn to the strap. In such a situation, the water will not be able to reach the inner side of the ma’avarta, the opening through which the strand passes. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate the immersion.

This clause explains the rationale why such an immersion is acceptable. Since these articles are permanently attached, they are considered as joined and as one integral whole.

This is speaking about cloaks that open in the front, whose loops serve as button holes.

This is speaking about a cloak that one puts on by slipping it over his head. Afterwards, the loops on the shoulders are closed.

This is speaking about a sheet that is large and whose ends are crumpled. For the immersion to be effective, the sheet must be extended so that it can be exposed to water in its entirety.

Here also this phrase indicates the Rambam’s intent. When only one entity is involved, since it will not remain in its present state forever, but will either be stretched out and extended, it must be stretched out in that manner for immersion. Similarly, when two entities are involved, since one will be moved or the two will be separated from each other entirely, even while they are together they are not considered as a single, integral entity.

Woven from strands of reeds or branches.

Because it is likely that there are dregs of produce intervening between the strips of material.

For it is common to remove the stuffing of these pillows and cushions [the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (Mikveot 10:2)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to a cushion used by merchants and storekeepers for support. It is sewed closed on all sides and its stuffing is never removed.

Used for sport (op. cit.). In this instance as well, the ball is never opened.

When clothes are immersed in water, any air that is trapped inside the fabric rises to the surface. When it is saturated with water entirely, the bubbles cease.

Even though the accessories are still attached to the article and have not been immersed in their entirety, the immersion of the article is valid, because the part of the accessory that is necessary has been immersed. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:5), the Rambam writes that when a chain is made up of interlocking links, even if the measure ends in the midst of the link, it is necessary to immerse it only up to that point. There is no need to immerse the entire link. Moreover, the remainder of the link is not considered as an intervening substance (see Turei Zahav 202:9).

Since the bucket is large, it would be difficult to pick it up with a longer chain.

See a parallel in Hilchot Keilim 9:15.

Since the large container is being immersed for its own sake, the water inside of it is considered as mikveh water and it purifies the other keilim contained within.

Two fingerbreadths, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 6. This is the measure of the opening required for joining two bodies of water together. Since the large k'li is placed on its side, it is considered as an entity unto itself and the water inside of it, as a separate body of water that must be joined to the mikveh through an opening of the above measure.

Since it is not necessary to immerse the larger k’li, the water inside of it is considered as a separate entity which must be joined to the water of the mikveh according to the standard requirements.

Whose opening is much larger than the mouthpiece of drinking pouch. Moreover, it does not hold liquids at all (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 201:9).

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 12:1.